Prime example of why storing papers behind paywalls is a bad idea.

I can't read anything linked.

The authors then invoke Faraday's law H r E= i! 0 and conclude that the integral on the left side of Eq.(2) is identical to the first integral on the right. The theoretical result claimed in the Letter is directly predicated on this conclusion. This conclusion, however, is valid only ...

Continued?

where m (p) is the peak value of induced magnetic (electric) dipole moment and r (" r) is the ratio of magnetic (electric) permeability (permittivity) of the sphere and the surrounding medium at the given frequency. Equation (9) in [1] is a consequence of Eq.(8): JM º¿ 1= ...

The bottom of the second link (first Google Scholar link) leads to a free copy of the comment from Kent State University's website.

This rendered very oddly in Chrome on OS X: http://i.imgur.com/xFiNhav.png

PDF of first comment: http://muri.lci.kent.edu/Publications/Papers_KSU/PPM_PRL99_2...

The strange symbols appear because LaTeX use strange fonts with strange encodings, so the formulas look nice in the pdf but if you cut and paste them, and use a standard font to render the symbols then they are mapped to random characters in the standard fonts.

Those comments are scathing, they read like a post doc talking to an undergrad about their problem sheet!

"Equation (9) actually applies only to a perfectly conducting sphere and has been known for over 100 years..."

If an incorrect paper makes it into PRL, and someone is really sure, then there's blood in the water, and the sharks can be merciless.

I haven't read the papers, so I can't comment except to say that, just as Physics can let you be really right about something in nature, if you're not correct, sometimes you can be really wrong.

What parts are invalid? All, or just some?

I could only read one of the comments, and I wouldn't know enough physics to follow along, anyway.